Manchouck v. Mondelez International, Inc.

603 F. App'x 632
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
DecidedMay 18, 2015
Docket13-17029
StatusUnpublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 603 F. App'x 632 (Manchouck v. Mondelez International, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Manchouck v. Mondelez International, Inc., 603 F. App'x 632 (9th Cir. 2015).

Opinion

*633 MEMORANDUM ***

Monique Manchouck appeals the district court’s dismissal of her class action suit against Mondelez International, Inc., dba Nabisco (Nabisco) with prejudice. She alleges only that the district court abused its discretion in denying leave to amend; she does not challenge its dismissal of her complaint under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

We decline to consider Manchouck’s new proposal for amending her complaint to cure its defects, because she failed to first •present the proposed amendment to the district court either in opposition to a motion to dismiss or in a motion for reconsideration under Rules 59(e) or 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See Vincent v. Trend W. Technical Corp., 828 F.2d 568, 570 (9th Cir.1987). Moreover, even if we considered Manchouck’s proposed amendment, it does' no more than restate an allegation in paragraph 22 of the First Amended Complaint. Man-chouck raises the additional argument that other Newtons products list fruits rather than fruit purees as ingredients, but fails to explain the legal significance of this fact. Accordingly, the district court did not err in concluding that any further amendment would be futile. See DCD Programs, Ltd. v. Leighton, 883 F.2d 183, 188 (9th Cir.1987).

AFFIRMED.

***

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Garland v. The Kroger Co.
S.D. California, 2025
Castillo v. Prime Hydration LLC
N.D. California, 2024

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
603 F. App'x 632, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/manchouck-v-mondelez-international-inc-ca9-2015.